Archive for the ‘Dude that’s Gross’ Category
Can someone associated with Big Hollywood tell me what Male-Gigolo-in-Chief John Nolte’s recent absence/hiatus was about? Immediately prior to that, he was writing reviews so even-handed and straightforward that I couldn’t have covered them here if I wanted to. Since he’s been back, he’s been acting a bit crazy, frothing at the mouth over Night at the Museum‘s pernicious liberalism, obsessing over that shitty Goode Family show, and, of course, lauding Miley Cyrus’ bapitism-by-fire. Did he get, like, sent to a re-education camp? Did he start smoking whatever (clearly good shit) Breitbart smokes?
One of y’all is probably going to tell me he had a kid or a death in the family and I’m going to feel like a jackass.
Anyway, I bring this up because Deuce continues his descent into madness this evening, repping hard for the Twilight series:
“Twilight” is all about the self-restraint of both appetite and passion. Also playing an important thematic role is the importance of self-sacrifice, loyalty and family. It’s awfully hard not to like a film aimed at teens that’s so unapologetically earnest and well-intended. In this cinematic age of nihilism, moral relativism and hyper-sexualization of young girls, ”Twilight” should be hailed as the work of iconoclasts.
In fairness, Nolte claims not to be familiar with the source material, but dude. That series is probably the most prurient thing I’ve ever read that doesn’t have actual sex in it. It’s especially funny that Nolte would hold it up as a good portrayal of innocent/wholesome/traditional female sexuality, since in this case the male is the gatekeeper, and the middle two books are pretty much entirely about Bella trying to trick Edward into boning her.
And while the books do espouse a submissive female role, it’s not the traditional Patriarchy-approved one. It’s a weird, idiosyncratic one, that is more Mormonism-meets-Gor than Ladies Home Journal. It’s basically a 2,000-page study in the sexual hangups of one, Stephenie Meyer, and anyone who tries to make it larger than that does so at his peril.
Heather Smith (when will the endless parade of new Big Hollywood contributors ever stop?) has one of the more hilarious pieces in the site’s rife-with-hilarity history up. She manages to take a pretty boilerplate anti-feminist “DEAR GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?” piece of the sort that conservative outlets churn out on an almost daily basis, and inject it will some truly creative WTFness.
Don’t beam me up, Scotty. The Capt. James T. Kirk in the new “Star Trek” film is proof of how much ground men have lost in today’s culture.
This is a rather audacious claim, since the new Trek, like most of J.J. Abrams’ work, is pretty much a paean to boys with daddy issues. The only female characters on the screen for more than a few seconds are Spock’s familiar nurturing-Earth-goddess mother, and Uhura, who is one-dimensional even by action-movie-love-interest standards.
So what leads Smith to cast the new Trek as another insidious example of feminism’s cultural death-grip on the construction of masculine identity? Well, pretty much that Kirk is not a big enough asshole.
In the original series, Kirk has supreme self-control. He sacrifices himself for the safety of his crew and, in more than one episode, even chooses duty over true love. In the latest “Star Trek,” Kirk is Peter Pan, an irresponsible, reckless man-boy. (Warning: plot spoilers ahead.) The new Kirk tears down an empty Iowa highway in a stolen hot rod and drives off a cliff, jumping out to save himself, not the car. He gets into bar fights to serve his vanity, not some higher cause like rescuing the crew from aliens.
While the original Kirk used reason, the new one mostly leaves that to Spock.
Well, the entire narrative thrust of the new Trek is about how Starfleet gives that wayward man-boy’s life purpose and meaning. And it’s more that a little weird that, in a piece that tries to make hay of feminism’s antipathy toward “real” or “ideal” masculinity, Smith argues that being manly means being unreasonable. Now THAT’S some good man-hatin’.
The 1960s Kirk was a skillful seducer of women across the universe, a trait feminists now find unacceptable. So the new Kirk is a lecherous lad who suffers rejection by confident, professional women throughout the film. In fact, Mr. Spock gets more female attention than Kirk. When Kirk first meets Uhura, she immediately dismisses him as an uneducated Iowa farm boy. She later passionately kisses the emotionally distant Spock. Women are a civilizing force in making men accountable for their behavior throughout history. Feminism changed that. It was only in sexual liberation that women unleashed the Kirks from of their cages, transforming the male-female relationship into one of suspicion and cynicism. In Kirk’s old days, men’s adventurous freedom-loving thirst was quenched with a love of women and new landscapes. Today’s Kirk gets the blow off while Uhura throws herself at the emotionally unavailable Spock.
This argument is especially bizarre. How dare Uhura turn down teh cock! He’s Kirk! Give up that pussy already, girl! I love how one character not immediately putting out for another character in a sci-fi action movie is somehow evidence of a worldwide feminist conspiracy to enslave men.
And then there’s the weirdly masochistic women-as-thirst-quenchers (ewwwww) bit. The less said about that the better, because we’re coming up on maybe the best line in Big Hollywood history:
“Star Trek” might be set in the 23rd century but the emasculation of men affects us today. How are we going to fight war and recession without a country of Kirks?
I did a quick search on Memory Alpha, but I failed to find any canonical sources detailing James T. Kirk’s experience with the financial derivatives market. If anything, that seems like more of a Spock thing!
Can you imagine what a country of Kirks would look like? That shit would turn into a gay orgy so fast.
John Nolte actually graces us with his presence at Big Hollywood today (he hasn’t even been doing those lame TCM picks!), to tell us that JFK was a staunch conservative, Nixon was a hippie peacenik, The Pope won the Cold War, PSD doesn’t doesn’t exist, and that homeless people should fuck themselves:
If present-day Hollywood had their way here are five things you’d never know…
1. That JFK had way more in common with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush than most of today’s Democrats
2. That Richard Nixon won the peace in Vietnam
3. That the Pope, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher might have had more to do with winning the Cold War than boozy, womanizing Democrats
4. That those who served in Vietnam and Iraq are not psychotics and victims
5. That most homeless are in fact not mystics and wise men
JFK was conservative for entering Vietnam! Nixon was conservative for pulling out! The troops there had an awesome time! What!
4 and 5 are the most fair, though one must admit that the Vietnam thing cuts both ways; if we’d won as many engagements there as the movies depicted, there wouldn’t be a communist left on the planet.
Things really get awesome in the comments, though:
That the Catholic Church has done more to enable women’s liberty and security and rights than any other religion or government.
The Catholic schoolboy in me wants to spend a couple pages here quoting the ickier passages from Augustine and Aquinas, as well as the better feminist scholarly work on Marian adoration, but suffice to say, “LOL.”
That the Crusaders weren’t a bunch of whacked out, rabid Christians intent upon conquering the Muslim’s rightful homeland. There’s a reason it was called “The Holy Land”. Christ was born, lived, walked and died there six hundred years before Mohammed was even BORN. The Romans (pagans) had it when Christ died — Constantine converted to Christianity in the fourth century. Alexander the Great (a Pagan) had it before the Romans and the Jews before Alexander. The truth is Islam poured out of Arabia and CONQUERED the Holy Land by the sword. The Crusaders were just trying to take it back.
Liberal Hollywood takes sides in the Crusades? When? There was that Ridley Scott movie a few years back, but it hardly portrays the Muslims as awesome.
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. There was not second shooter. There was No Magic bullet
Uh, isn’t the Magic Bullet theory the one that says Oswald acted alone?
The CEOs of US companies, with few exceptions, are caring, charitable, law abiding, intelligent, honorable people dedicated to the best interests of society. They are the sort of people you could trust your children with in an emergency. They are like the ‘CEO’ of the Maersk Alabama – willing to sacrifice for their employees.
Climbing the corporate ladder is a long tough ordeal. If you make mistakes, the mistakes will take you down. If you screw people along the way, they will find a way to pay you back and take you down. Darwin seldom naps in corporate America and thus the cream rises.
Someone hasn’t been reading the papers!
I can’t wait until 40 years from now, when the future versions of people like Nolte are claiming that Barack Obama was really a closet conservative.
Out of totally selfless feminist concern, Skip Press recommends that all you dumb sluts out there keep your clothes on:
Yet another woman has lost her job when it was learned she posed in Playboy, proving once again there’s no shortage of fools in America.
California cheerleading coach Carlie Christine was fired by Casa Robles High School “amid backlash from parents” after being selected as Playboy’s “Cyber Girl of the Week.”
Press then goes on to name several other famous cases of “naked pictures leak, woman’s career ruined” before reaching the following conclusion:
It seems that what too many of these women fail to see when they pose for these photos is that they have crossed the line from human to commodity. In Dr. Laura’s case, she apparently thought her boyfriend would never betray her by sharing the photos. Vanessa Williams believed she was legally protected with a written document regarding her pictures, and apparently Hugh Hefner agreed and turned down the pictures. Bob Guccione of Penthouse didn’t agree, published them, and ended up with a $14 million profit. Did this exposure (pun intended) help the very talented Ms. Williams? You could say that, but more likely, she was simply able to overcome the situation by talent and force of will, just as Dr. Laura managed to put her problem behind her.
When you become an object in people’s minds, you’re a commodity, the kind of thing that often ends up in a trash dump.
If the simple existence of photographs of your unclothed body means you will “end up in a trash dump” you are already a commodity, already an object long before you ever step in front of the camera.
Pr0n is the only literal marketable good at play here, but it isn’t the “commodity” that interests Skip Press and other moral tsk-tsk, *cough*slut*cough* crusaders. It’s not even nudity. It’s not even the female body. It’s motherfucking chastity, in the most broad sense of the word. For Press, a woman’s worth, even her worth as a worker/laborer/wage-earner, is directly tied to her ability to keep her legs shut, blush at the right times, and never show any ankle.
I love seeing a beautiful nude woman, but preferably if she’s someone I’m in love with, and we’re alone. If she were mine, I wouldn’t particularly want her displaying it all for the world to see. I wouldn’t hold it against her, I guess, but in my years of experience of knowing people involved in media nudity, the end result is usually far different than what they expected.
Yeah, because clearly it’s Carlie Christine’s job to live up to what you want in a woman, you self-centered fuck.
Ultimately, people only give you the respect you demand and deserve. I wonder what would happen if the majority of women simply stopped taking their clothes off except for men who loved and treasured them? How different of a world would it be?
Counter-proposal: how about women do whatever they fuck they want to do, and the “men who love and treasure them” learn to fucking deal and stop being sanctimonious any time a woman does anything even tangentially related to her sexuality?
The jumping-off point for Burt Pretlusky’s latest ambling rant is a Huffington Post piece calling him “cranky.” I’ve never really gotten “cranky” from Pretlusky. He’s more like your half-crazy uncle who did too many drugs in the 70s. He was cool and funny until one day, a couple years ago, he wandered into a Barnes and Noble, looking for some coffee. But since he was too confused by the Tall/Grande/Venti naming scheme, he walked about the store in a daze and happened to pick up a Glenn Beck book. And now he won’t stop haranguing everybody with random right-wing conspiracy minutiae at holiday dinners.
You can’t get too upset, though. It’s not his fault, really. If he’d happened to pick up a Keith Olbermann book that fateful day, things would’ve turned out the same way, just with the politics reversed. That’s just the way he is.
Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve come across a few surveys that got my attention. In one, it was found that 41% of women in their 20s would marry for money, 74% of women in their 30s and over 60% of women who were 40 or older. The man’s looks were of little or no concern, but he had to have at least $2.5 million. It wasn’t that love didn’t matter to the ladies, but it was love of money.
That reminded me that several years ago, there was a survey conducted by a woman’s magazine — perhaps the Ladies Home Journal — that asked mothers of all ages if, having it all to do over again, they would still opt to have children. By a whopping margin, they said not a chance.
The ladies, it seems, aren’t the great romantic nest-builders their publicists would have us think they are. I choose, however, to believe that most of these money-grubbing, embittered females are liberals. After all, in spite of all the whining about sexual harassment in the work place, you never heard liberal women complaining about serial womanizers such as Sen. Robert Packwood, Sen. Ted Kennedy or President Bill Clinton. In fact, they delighted in nailing the hides of such female whistle-blowers as Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Gennifer Flowers to the barn door. And when it came to Sarah Palin, they happily provided the lynch rope.
Thanks for not linking to the first survey you cite! I’m sure it employs totally sound methodology! And, man, who needs statistics when you have Burt Pretlusky’s hazy memory of a God-knows-how-old, completely-scientific Ladies Home Journal study.
I remember a study I read a while back, it was probably in National Review or Weekly Standard or something, that stated that 99% of old farts who bitch about the way young women live their lives never, ever get laid again. I also choose to believe that the outstanding 1% were all men bedded by Sarah Palin.
And so is a young woman who absolutely sticks out in the gun shop. She’s wearing a cream colored linen baby doll with blue grosgrain trim; on her feet, pink flip-flops that pop off alabaster skin. Her hair is the color of golden Kansas wheat. Mid-twenties, she’s an iconic all-American beauty who makes me flash to memories of a truly insane childhood crush: Tuesday Weld as Thalia Menninger on The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis.
Looking as if she’s on the edge of a meltdown, she paces, glances nervously at the display cases lined with gleaming rows of pistols and revolvers. She makes a move to exit the gun shop, then returns, as if yanked by a fishing reel.
“Excuse me, do you, do you know about guns?”
She’s even got that vulnerable, tremulous Tuesday Weld pitch to her voice.
And she is talking to yours truly.
I like how, in the “resolution” section, old boy actually expects us to believe this happened to him. Then he posts, like, a foot fetish picture. I usually think it’s counter-productive when liberals’ only response to gun nuts is to make penis jokes, but it’s not subtextual here, it’s straight up fucking textual.
I mean, you’ll find few people more willing than I to see abusers shot in the fucking face, but the damsel-in-distress/vulnerable/hysterical woman fetishizing, coupled with the leering tone, is just completely icky.